OldBrownsFan Posted July 10, 2019 Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 During this year's Aspen Ideas Festival, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg explained that Facebook is increasingly trying to work with governments to determine what political speech it does and does not allow. Oh sorry, I mean: what kind of political ads it is willing to approve. In the particular example Zuckerberg cited, in 2018, American pro-life groups wanted to run advertisements for Facebook users in Ireland. This is because the Irish were about to vote in a referendum on whether abortion should be legalized. When Facebook saw the ad requests, the company contacted the Irish government asking whether this should or should not be allowed. "Their response at the time was, 'we don't currently have a law, so you need to make whatever decision you want to make.'" In other words, Facebook could do as it pleased. There was no legal reason to disallow the ads. But what did Facebook do? You guessed it: "We ended up not allowing the ads." This is extremely disturbing, but it's very expected. Facebook's top managers have a long history of leftist activism, and it's clear from the company's policies that they're pushing their authoritarian leftist views on the company itself. As abortion activist Lila Rose explains on Twitter, for example, "FB COO Sheryl Sandberg donated $2 million to Planned Parenthood." This is Facebook's real face. They ask a government whether they should ban a specific case of conservative speech, and do so, even when they're told there's is absolutely no law on the book calling on Facebook to take action. Facebook has truly become a force for authoritarian progressivism -- and it's downright frightening. https://pjmedia.com/trending/mark-zuckerberg-brags-we-didnt-allow-pro-life-groups-to-advertise-before-irelands-abortion-vote/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 10, 2019 Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 Facebook is a private company, correct? Facebook still has thousands of conservative groups on it, correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted July 10, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 13 minutes ago, MLD Woody said: Facebook is a private company, correct? Facebook still has thousands of conservative groups on it, correct? "Facebook has truly become a force for authoritarian progressivism -- and it's downright frightening." Correct? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted July 10, 2019 Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 2 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said: "Facebook has truly become a force for authoritarian progressivism -- and it's downright frightening." Correct? If this is true then I would recommend not personally using their product, boycotting it and telling your friends/family. Problem solved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted July 10, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 Facebook Issues New Policy Saying It’s Acceptable to Post Death Threats Against Me https://summit.news/2019/07/09/facebook-issues-new-policy-saying-its-acceptable-to-issue-death-threats-against- 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted July 10, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 5 minutes ago, tiamat63 said: If this is true then I would recommend not personally using their product, boycotting it and telling your friends/family. Problem solved. No it is not as simple as that, not with the amount of power that Big Tech wields. "The irony that Zuckerberg was born in 1984." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted July 10, 2019 Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 4 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said: No it is not as simple as that, not with the amount of power that Big Tech wields. So you want to implement Anti-Trust laws? Very FDR Democrat of you. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted July 10, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 Just now, tiamat63 said: So you want to implement Anti-Trust laws? Very FDR Democrat of you. And the left who always seems to like regulation does not want regulation on big Tech because it favors them..how republican of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted July 10, 2019 Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 5 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said: And the left who always seems to like regulation does not want regulation on big Tech because it favors them..how republican of them. Odd you say that, wasn't a topic covered just this week or previous about certain liberal lawmakers wanting to make it a crime to make fun of them online? Which is weird you would forget that because, well, it was you that started the thread topic about it. Seems like they want regulations of some kind as well. Here we come full circle in the realization that the dems and GOP are the same people, just wearing different color coats. My work here is done. Good day. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted July 10, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 Just now, tiamat63 said: Odd you say that, wasn't a topic covered just this week or previous about certain liberal lawmakers wanting to make it a crime to make fun of them online? Which is weird you would forget that because, well, it was you that started the thread topic about it. Seems like they want regulations of some kind as well. Here we come full circle in the realization that the dems and GOP are the same people, just wearing different color coats. My work here is done. Good day. Good day..but you are painting with too broad of a brush. I told you before Tiam I am more pragmatic than I am a card carrying conservative or republican. I have no problem supporting things I agree with even if it doesn't line up with conservative ideas. In this case big tech wields too much power and they are using that power to influence elections. You can say start up your own company to compete but these companies are so big now that most start up companies who try to compete get crushed or bought out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 10, 2019 Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 Plainly and simply - the left LOVES the restriction of free speech THEY HATE. But, if it's a "fellow" leftie, with free speech, then restriction of free speech is a dangerous thing. Trump can't ! NOT FAIR ! VIOLATION OF 1ST AMENDMENT. (hee hee, we don't see anything wrong if AOC does the same thing. What hypocrisy?) https://www.theblaze.com/news/federal-court-rules-president-trump-cant-block-twitter-critics-so-former-state-official-says-hes-suing-aoc-over-same-issue 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted July 10, 2019 Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 5 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said: Good day..but you are painting with too broad of a brush. I told you before Tiam I am more pragmatic than I am a card carrying conservative or republican. I have no problem supporting things I agree with even if it doesn't line up with conservative ideas. In this case big tech wields too much power and they are using that power to influence elections. You can say start up your own company to compete but these companies are so big now that most start up companies who try to compete get crushed or bought out. Your claim to not be party line has little evidence in my time on this board. You only believed Big Tech was becoming a problem in the last year or so when you saw the trending topic of Republican voices allegedly being minimized on it. It's altruistically self serving - I'll push for FDR like ideals at the benefit of Republican endgame. That is party line, you're only too focused on the end where I'm looking at the means. An example of myself not toting a conservative "party line" - Would be on a topic such as single payer health care. Even then I'm incredibly skeptical and critical. Only because there is evidence of benefit for all citizens, not a select few I may align with. If this was Facebook limiting access to other groups you might not agree with, I highly doubt you would be as passionate as you are about your show of concern. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I've seen little to show otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canton Dawg Posted July 10, 2019 Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 48 minutes ago, MLD Woody said: Facebook is a private company, correct? Facebook still has thousands of conservative groups on it, correct? And the Colorado cake bakers are a private company...carry on. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 10, 2019 Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 You're wrong, Tiam. Your assumptions are self-buoying and single payer ? BENIFIT to ALL CITIZENS? talk about following hte party line. Dude. You parrot the leftwing talking points. And offer no evidence to back it up. single payer - BENEFIT TO ALL CITIZENS? wtf? Even Bernie Sanders knows single-payer is painful https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/.../even-bernie-sanders-knows-single-payer-is-... Jul 3, 2018 - Just consider the economic devastation single-payer would sow. In 2016, the health insurance industry employed more than 460,000 folks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 10, 2019 Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 Why Single-Payer Health Care Delivers Poor Quality at High Cost ... https://fee.org/articles/why-single-payer-health-care-delivers-poor-quality-at-high-cost/ Mar 18, 2017 - This system generates creative destruction, which sometimes can be painful, but the long-term result is that we are vastly richer. Governments ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted July 10, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 7 minutes ago, tiamat63 said: Your claim to not be party line has little evidence in my time on this board. You only believed Big Tech was becoming a problem in the last year or so when you saw the trending topic of Republican voices allegedly being minimized on it. It's altruistically self serving - I'll push for FDR like ideals at the benefit of Republican endgame. That is party line, you're only too focused on the end where I'm looking at the means. An example of myself not toting a conservative "party line" - Would be on a topic such as single payer health care. Even then I'm incredibly skeptical and critical. Only because there is evidence of benefit for all citizens, not a select few I may align with. If this was Facebook limiting access to other groups you might not agree with, I highly doubt you would be as passionate as you are about your show of concern. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I've seen little to show otherwise. It is more of a right and wrong issue than anything else. My recent criticism of FB is because the censorship by FB is a recent phenomenon. I would be for universal health care except I know that rarely can government do a better job than private enterprise. We already have an example of government run health care with the VA and we know of the problems they have had. Those problems would certainly get worse with a massive takeover of healthcare by government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 10, 2019 Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 Health-Care Reform Reality Check: Single-Payer Model Is ... https://www.nationalreview.com/.../health-care-reform-reality-check-single-payer-mo... Jun 7, 2017 - (Photo: Stephanie Berg/Dreamstime) The utopian fantasy of a single-payer system is attractive to many voters, but it would destroy the Government Monopoly: Senator Sanders' “Single-Payer” Health Care ... https://www.heritage.org/.../government-monopoly-senator-sanders-single-payer-healt... Senator Bernie Sanders, along with 16 Senate Democrats, is sponsoring the Medicare for All Act of 2017. The legislation would outlaw virtually all private .. The Case Against Single Payer: How 'Medicare for All' Will Wreck ... https://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Single-Payer-System_And/dp/1645720020 The Case Against Single Payer: How 'Medicare for All' Will Wreck America's Health Care ... but unrealistic proposition promoted by far-left activists, single-payer health care has ... The Case Against Single Payer will explain the harmful implications of giving the ... Erasing America: Losing Our Future by Destroying Our Past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 10, 2019 Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 Single-Payer Is A Danger For Cancer Patients | Stock News & Stock ... https://www.investors.com/politics/columnists/democrats-single-payer-cancer-patients/ Jan 10, 2018 - Single-payer advocates intend to make their scheme affordable by slashing the use ... Fuchs claims that "less innovation is not always harmful. .... Deal, however, isn't the unprecedented economic destruction it would cause. ************************************************************ So. Tiam complains that OBF follows the party line. Then, he says single payer insurance will benefit All Americans. Dude. Nobody is gonna buy what yer sellin' with a straight face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted July 10, 2019 Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 15 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said: It is more of a right and wrong issue than anything else. My recent criticism of FB is because the censorship by FB is a recent phenomenon. I would be for universal health care except I know that rarely can government do a better job than private enterprise. We already have an example of government run health care with the VA and we know of the problems they have had. Those problems would certainly get worse with a massive takeover of healthcare by government. Right and wrong in the case of a private company limiting a free and non-essential product (really a product a shit ton of people need to get rid of) is almost non existent. At worst, it is incredibly subjective. This is where Cal famously talks about the emotional knee jerk. I'm sure members of antifa cry about their shit being muted and believe it is wrong. You believe that is a wise idea, I trust? I think it's pretty solid myself. But if they weren't censured then I really couldn't care less. I won't argue for "free speech" Because it is non-applicable in this case and it's a still a private business doing what it will with it's product. FB is a large company with a ton of money and influence. This is the risk of a free/limited interference market - freedom is inherently dangerous. This isn't banking, agriculture, healthcare, energy or the like. When FB becomes an essential service, I'll be happy to chat. Until then, my belief stands - if this was a party you didn't agree with, your calls for your fellow citizens concerns of FB's increasing power would not be as passionate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted July 10, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 1 minute ago, tiamat63 said: Right and wrong in the case of a private company limiting a free and non-essential product (really a product a shit ton of people need to get rid of) is almost non existent. At worst, it is incredibly subjective. This is where Cal famously talks about the emotional knee jerk. I'm sure members of antifa cry about their shit being muted and believe it is wrong. You believe that is a wise idea, I trust? I think it's pretty solid myself. But if they weren't censured then I really couldn't care less. I won't argue for "free speech" Because it is non-applicable in this case and it's a still a private business doing what it will with it's product. FB is a large company with a ton of money and influence. This is the risk of a free/limited interference market - freedom is inherently dangerous. This isn't banking, agriculture, healthcare, energy or the like. When FB becomes an essential service, I'll be happy to chat. Until then, my belief stands - if this was a party you didn't agree with, your calls for your fellow citizens concerns of FB's increasing power would not be as passionate. There is a happy medium here one that does not involve government intervention and one I hope does happen. We need at the minimum to have an ombudsman group involved who could monitor companies like FB and deal with complaints and make companies like FB be more transparent. Here is an article from VICE news. I know nothing about VICE news whether they lean liberal or conservative but I like the idea of an ombudsman group to hold companies like FB accountable. Facebook Needs a Public Editor https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qkjzzp/facebook-needs-a-public-editor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 10, 2019 Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 I saw flippity-flippity there, Tiam, but no emotional knee-jerk. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, there is legit reason to consider a "private company" that is actually a national/international social media, subject to violation of the 1st Amendment. Banning critics from social media can constitute a First Amendment ... https://www.socialmedialawbulletin.com/.../banning-critics-social-media-can-constitute... Feb 5, 2019 - The Davison case concerns a social media page created and administered by ... in violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. ... standard public forum, social media pages have become significant places for the ... ********************************************************* Free Speech and the Regulation of Social Media Content - CRS Reports https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45650 Mar 27, 2019 - individuals have sometimes alleged that these companies violated their free .... 4 See, e.g., Nicholas A. Primrose, Has Society Become Tolerant of ...... A constitutional injury is not the only type of harm that a social media user ... "Free Speech and the Regulation of Social Media Content As the Supreme Court has recognized, social media sites like Facebook and Twitter have become important venues for users to exercise free speech rights protected under the First Amendment. Commentators and legislators, however, have questioned whether these social media platforms are living up to their reputation as digital public forums. Some have expressed concern that these sites are not doing enough to counter violent or false speech. At the same time, many argue that the platforms are unfairly banning and restricting access to potentially valuable speech. Currently, federal law does not offer much recourse for social media users who seek" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted July 10, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 Someone posted here an article by Dennis Prager explaining the difference between the left today and traditional liberals. One issue liberals had right all along were on free speech. They would defend the worst speech knowing that censorship was a slippery slope. Allen Dershowitz to me represents the old school civil libertarian liberal who does not cast away his principals just because he hates Trump like the ACLU has done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 10, 2019 Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 If I were an attorney, I could see serious justification in suing a national/global entity ("private" business), that is specializing in providing a free speech platform. The violation of the 1st Amendment comes into play, when the "private business" discriminates and controls who gets to have said free speech, and who gets censored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted July 10, 2019 Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 23 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said: There is a happy medium here one that does not involve government intervention and one I hope does happen. We need at the minimum to have an ombudsman group involved who could monitor companies like FB and deal with complaints and make companies like FB be more transparent. Here is an article from VICE news. I know nothing about VICE news whether they lean liberal or conservative but I like the idea of an ombudsman group to hold companies like FB accountable. Facebook Needs a Public Editor https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qkjzzp/facebook-needs-a-public-editor I would be interested in an idea like a public editor. The problem being whom has the editing power. Not an idea I gush at but merits a further thought. However the "make companies like FB" Is where you lose me, especially with you talking about slippery slopes and authoritarianism. FB themselves produce almost no content save for info about their dealings. The pages are run 3rd party. If ISIS starts a FB page, FB isn't held liable for it should it not be discovered and shut down. (An extreme example but the point stands), Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 10, 2019 Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 1 hour ago, Canton Dawg said: And the Colorado cake bakers are a private company...carry on. ... Do we need to explain the difference between sexual orientation (protected) and political affiliation? I mean shit, we apparently need to explain, again, how this isn't impeding free speech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canton Dawg Posted July 10, 2019 Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 14 minutes ago, MLD Woody said: ... Do we need to explain the difference between sexual orientation (protected) and political affiliation? I mean shit, we apparently need to explain, again, how this isn't impeding free speech WHAT WAS I THINKING?? I forgot about protecting the sexual orientation rights of individuals in this country. Let's just throw the First Amendment out the window then! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted July 10, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 8 minutes ago, Canton Dawg said: WHAT WAS I THINKING?? I forgot about protecting the sexual orientation rights of individuals in this country. Let's just throw the First Amendment out the window then! But you better be on the right left side of the issue if you want rights...better not state in a classroom you believe there are only two genders or you get expelled and banned from school (at least in England)... https://www.theblaze.com/news/17-year-old-who-recorded-viral-video-telling-teacher-there-are-only-two-genders-is-kicked-out-of-school Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted July 10, 2019 Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 3 hours ago, Canton Dawg said: And the Colorado cake bakers are a private company...carry on. yeah and alot of at the time agreed thst a cake maker isnt really an essential service so we didnt care.....but then u open the door to the discussion of which professions are allowed to discriminate and which arent. pharmacists are a prime example....you all want pharmacists to be able to deny filling morning after pills. Well then why can facebook not deny race baiting hate speechers a plstform on their service? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 10, 2019 Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 Don't put political affiliation on the same level as race, sex, ethnicity, religious affiliation and sexual orientation. That's where most of these "gotchas" die Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted July 10, 2019 Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 🖕 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.